RAJINDER S. RAI KAWAR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant application (MA 807/2011) has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short, the RDDBFI Act) for condoning the delay of four days occasioned in filing the appeal. Both the respondents have filed separate replies to the application opposing the prayer.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Rajeev Narain representing Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Counsel for the appellant/applicant, Mr. Safder Imam representing. Mr. Hashmat Nabi, Counsel for 1st respondent Bank and Mr. R.M. Bagai, Counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the record.

(3.) MR . Narain has submitted that due to illness the appellant was not in a position to sign the appeal memo, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. He also submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO & Ors., II : (2005) CCR 47 (SC) : III (2005) SLT 455 : : AIR 2005 SC 219 has observed that the expression "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.